The C&O-B&O and the Cuban Missile Crisis SEAtkinson, March 15, 2025March 17, 2025 The most dangerous crisis of the Cold War could have weighed on the C&O-B&O decision. On October 22, 1962, President Kennedy revealed to the world that the Soviets were busy building missile bases on Cuba (link). On that day many Americans thought that by the next day they would be at war with the Soviet Union, dead and fried up in an all out hellish nuclear war. With the fear of nuclear war in the air, the oral arguments before the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) for approval of the C&O -B&O petition took on another reason for speedy approval: National security and the possibility of war. Railroads in national defense of the nation was then, and now, an old story. The railroads supported both sides in the Civil War, moving troops and supplies on a large scale. Railroads also can transport lots and lots of modern heavy weapons and armored vehicles, like artillery and tanks. Mobilization for a possible war, according to Thomas Goodfellow (1967), was occurring at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the railroads were ramping up for the possibility of sending men and materials to various points in the US southeast. With the fear of war in the air and the railroads’ long time role in wartime transportation, the argument to get a quick decision and rehabilitate the B&O now was an even easier one to make. Jervis Langdon, president of the B&O, declared that the men and women of the B&O were ready to do their part in wartime, but long hesitation on a decision would mean the B&O would grow too weak to fight a war. The freight cars, capital improvements and financial security that the C&O would bring to the B&O was needed right now to win a war against communism. The mortal danger on the B&O from looming bankruptcy was extended to the mortal danger on America imposed by Soviet missiles in Cuba. The C&O could save America and us all from war and communism by rehabilitating the B&O and making it strong for national defense. A General’s Phone Call. From Chessie News, Vol. 6, No. 14, November 2, 1962. See link for larger picture. How far the argument’s success reached inside the ICC is unknown, according to Richard Sanders (2001), and the exact debates among the ICC members are also unknown. The ICC approval of the petition does contain some skepticism of the claim that the B&O’s abilities to contribute to national defense would be harmed by a delay. What would have been the main source of any delay would have been a consolidation of the C&O-B&O petition with merger petitions between other railroads (PRR and NYC, N & W – Nickel Plate- Wabash). The ICC denied consolidation and reasoned that the C&O-B&O petition was not a merger, but the C&O’s acquisition of the B&O through a controlling stock interest. It really doesn’t matter if the ICC acknowledged any role that the B&O could play in national defense. It doesn’t matter if the C&O guys just used the Cuban missile crisis as grease to get their petition for control of the B&O going faster. The better outcome was that the ICC granted the C&O its wish on December 17, 1962. No matter the reasons, healthy and vibrate railroads are always a better thing for national defense and the American economy. References. American Association of Railroads. Freight Rail and Military Operations. Accessed March 15, 2025. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. Control, Baltimore & O. RR. Co., 317 I.C.C. 261 (1962) Chessie News. 1962. ‘The B&O’s Ability Will Be Enhanced.’ December 17. Chessie News. 1962. Why the General Roused B&O’s President at Midnight. November 2. Goodfellow, Thomas M. America’s Railroads: Partners in Defense. Transportation Proceeding. Vol. II, No. 4 (April 1968). Accessed March 15, 2025. Saunders, Richard. 2003. Main Lines: Rebirth of North American Railroads. 1970-2002. Saunders, Richard. 2001. Merging Lines: American Railroads, 1900-1970. C&O-B&O Chessie System History Members' area Railroad Heritage B&OC&OmergersNational SecurityRailroads